- From: Paul Prescod <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>
- Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 02:59:58 -0400
- To: Gavin Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>, papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
- Cc: kmc@harlequin.com, marc@ckm.ucsf.edu, www-style@w3.org, www-html@w3.org
At 03:47 AM 8/11/96 GMT, Gavin Nicol wrote: >We have to look at the overall picture. GI's + CSS is not a bad >combination, GI's + DSSSL is better. The problems with attributes is >that once we take a step down that path, momentum will keep pushing us >down it. Momentum will keep pushing HTML down that path, but HTML is already down that path. HTML is defined as a set of GIs and attributes (a DTD!) and will probably always be. That's why there is a parallel W3C development track for Generic SGML on the Web. How is "HTML with user-defined GIs" substantially different than "basic SGML?" Wouldn't it be redundant to have both? >Parsing is the least of our worries, which is what I was saying. I wa >also saying that anything that can attach semantics to attributes can >do the same thing with GI's, in a probably simpler manner. But the HTML GI's do not need to have semantics attached to them. They already have them. CLASSes are supposed to be refinements of those semantics, not new ones altogether. Paul Prescod
Received on Sunday, 11 August 1996 03:01:16 UTC